OPINION POLL: Underage content

[Excess]

Well, take a look at this. The drawing is supposed to depict a Disney character known as Kim Possible. Looking at the picture, you would think the girl is in her 20's, but the character is actually 10 years old in the cartoon on Disney.

Actually, no. As far as I know, the character is actually in the 16ish age range.

And as has been said already, the 16 and up age range is where the line gets really hard to see sometimes. There's not much difference biologically, so saying "ANYTHING under 18 is bad" is really not meaning much but to be a pre-based limit set based on personal belief. As has also been mentioned, I think the most clear line is that between physical maturity. No clear difference between 16-19 or so, but a more obvious one between 13-16. Even putting 16 as a limit is tight though, as there is not a huge difference between 15 and 16 either. This is because physical development mostly takes place over several years, mostly I'd think about from 11-15.

However, because the line itself is so thin, it would be best to just go with the legal precedent and stick to 18 and up.

 

[cloudgazer2k]

voted "no", and rightfully so. the few times i have come across something that involved minors or kids was flagged.
first and foremost, i am vehemently against any kind of child porn of any kind, in any country, province, nation or what have you. i have done my fair share of helping to get people that do get off on that stuff arrested. and though that 16-17 line is blurred, i feel that it really should not matter, that it should be banned from any website like this one.
there are so many of us that don't get any real sexual pleasure from tickling, just a sort of thrill. but it scares me that there are so many others out there that do see tickling as something sexual and would even allow pictures/stories/videos of underage people being tickled to arouse them.
my 2 cents, take it as you will.

 

[GodlessTickler]

The conundrum of under age tickling

I think that the problem here that's upsetting so many people is clear. From a practical standpoint its easy - underage tickling = site getting shutdown (therefore) bad. Simple, logical, clear.

But trying to apply the same simple logic to the morality question of including underage material we find ourselves in an inescapable sink hole of logical complexity. We "know" that underage material is wrong... but why. Well some people may have other reasons but the clearest logic based concept is this, people who are underage are not able to make adult choices and theretofore are being exploited. Exploiting people is wrong because there is harm. Therefore underage content = wrong. All simple so far BUT we have a problem. Rape, is exploitive. Non-consensual tickle torture is exploitive, all these acts do harm and in reality we consider them wrong, but in fantasy we consider them acceptable. Then why should this same fantasy is not reality argument apply to children. Well again, our gut tells us so. Then again our gut often tells us lies, lies like its ok to punch someone in the face because they talked to our girlfriend or some peoples guts tell them it is ok to fly planes into the office building of people who don't agree with their religious dogma, or whatever so our guts may not be trusted. In logic isn't this hypocrisy? One kind of morally reprehensible fantasy is ok, as long as it is not the kind that I find moral reprehensible. Of course it is, it is obvious hypocrisy. Trust me when I say it causes me just as much mental aggravation as it does you, because I too "know" it is wrong. Still, I thought I would throw this little argument out there so that others who care about logic in things rather than just simplistic emotionality, can have their brains as tied up in knots as I did. I of course welcome counter arguments.

 

[Hiro]

Well, take a look at this. The drawing is supposed to depict a Disney character known as Kim Possible. Looking at the picture, you would think the girl is in her 20's, but the character is actually 10 years old in the cartoon on Disney.

Or this . While this character is not being tickled, it could be argued that the picture has sexual undertones, and a picture like that being posted on an adult forum, is just not appropriate.


And yes, the owners of this site are going to do what they wish, as are the owners of Tickle Theater, however I think the TMF is making the right one, and clearly TT is going to lose members with its choice. However, no matter what the choices of the owners of the sites, it is still important that we discuss it.

Why didn't you report the posts to a TT moderator instead of complaining about them here? My wife is an admin at TT and says she never got a "bad post" report on those.

 

[wendynpeter]

That may be, but we're not talking about morals in general. This thread is about children featured on an adult tickling website.

You are absolutely right. The thing I've noticed about TMF and TT (even more so) is that some members are very quick to ignore/forget/deny that they are adult sites that provide for the sharing of adult sexual fetish content.

It may be because individuals spend lots of time here (and there) and become so used to it all that they really do forget or become desensitized to the fact that these are adult sites.

TG, I've argued your exact point many, many times, and I've come to understand that this sort of discussion with other members does as much to reveal a scary side of things as it does to frustrate the hell out of you.

All that said, people who want to blur the line between adult content of a sexual nature and "playful tickling" including kids or teens can never really answer your question, which is, "Why do you think it's appropriate to have "playful tickling" images with kids or teens mixed with adult content on an adult fetish site?"

The answer is, of course, that it isn't. And to be honest, viewing "playful" tickling involving kids or teens in this context sexualizes it. Which may be why some people want to view that content in that context.

Anyway, I just want to say that I admire you for fighting the good fight here, and I hope you'll get a ton of posts in support of your view. But don't count on it. Like I said, I argued exactly your point at TT and was shouted down... Scary.

 

[Feathery]

While I am completely against using underage minors in any sexual situations or depictions, as an artist I do have a problem with censorship and 1st Amendment protection rights regarding art and literature. While it may not be my cup of tea, to see drawings of cute faeries or animals, or dungeon and dragon stories involving rape, I believe that artists and writers should have the right to create them if they so choose. If we go down the path of censorship, it's a slippery slope. Where does it end, if we so concern ourselves with trying not to offend everyone's personal tastes and beliefs? We all have the ability to click off the image or story we do not like or disagree with, just as we can exercise our right to turn to a different channel if we don't like what we are watching on television. As the expression goes, "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it." This is my opinion, however, as this is a privately owned forum, I'm sure the owner/operators will set policy as they see it.

 

[chicago]

Why didn't you report the posts to a TT moderator instead of complaining about them here? My wife is an admin at TT and says she never got a "bad post" report on those.

Because I'm in the process of deleting my account there, and those aren't the only two pictures. I'm not going to go through all the Anime and other drawings on TT. Those are just a few I found within 10 minutes of looking.

The fact that they are there, and that there were more, and worse pictures, that I didn't want to post here and ruin the image of the TMF, is sad, and it's not my job to remove them, it's the job of mods at TT, and unfortunately, some of them have picked to argue for that side of this debate anyway.

Not to mention, that those pics had been posted a long time ago and were on the first page of a very, very, very long thread.

 

[Bugman]

I think that the problem here that's upsetting so many people is clear. From a practical standpoint its easy - underage tickling = site getting shutdown (therefore) bad. Simple, logical, clear.

But trying to apply the same simple logic to the morality question of including underage material we find ourselves in an inescapable sink hole of logical complexity. We "know" that underage material is wrong... but why. Well some people may have other reasons but the clearest logic based concept is this, people who are underage are not able to make adult choices and theretofore are being exploited. Exploiting people is wrong because there is harm. Therefore underage content = wrong. All simple so far BUT we have a problem. Rape, is exploitive. Non-consensual tickle torture is exploitive, all these acts do harm and in reality we consider them wrong, but in fantasy we consider them acceptable. Then why should this same fantasy is not reality argument apply to children. Well again, our gut tells us so. Then again our gut often tells us lies, lies like its ok to punch someone in the face because they talked to our girlfriend or some peoples guts tell them it is ok to fly planes into the office building of people who don't agree with their religious dogma, or whatever so our guts may not be trusted. In logic isn't this hypocrisy? One kind of morally reprehensible fantasy is ok, as long as it is not the kind that I find moral reprehensible. Of course it is, it is obvious hypocrisy. Trust me when I say it causes me just as much mental aggravation as it does you, because I too "know" it is wrong. Still, I thought I would throw this little argument out there so that others who care about logic in things rather than just simplistic emotionality, can have their brains as tied up in knots as I did. I of course welcome counter arguments.

I can only speak for myself,but i find rape fantaisies or non-consensual tickling
abhorent also.And i have never felt the need to punch someone in the face because he talked to whoever i was dating at the time.

To murder innocent people by flying planes into buildings,setting off bombs in random places or other acts of terrisiom is a subject better left to the p&r forum IMO.

 

[GodlessTickler]

Bugman:
Well if you think that basically anything that isn't ok in real life, people are not free to express in fantasy then that is a completely different question (I can not imagine the incredibly numerous things you would censor on the basis, video games, movies, music ect that depict admittedly abhorrent acts) ... as for my examples I only meant to show that "we have a gut feeling" or "we know it's wrong" has less than no logical bases whatsoever and has little validity in argument but since you want to take exception to specific examples let me put it another way. Human beings are raised in societies, social groups, and they tend to adopt certain moral ideology from their social groups. As such they may be conditioned to believe different things in different places at different times, and since many people would have different "gut feelings' that is not a logical valid argument, I will readily agree that my examples are somewhat lacking, but it really doesn't change the nature of the argument, I hope you see my point there... the gut feeling, or an "everyone knows" or "its always been that way" argument always lacks logical validity. Always has, it is covered in first semester philosophy at every college in the country as a formal fallacy, I was merely pointing that out and tried to use some (perhaps bad) examples to make it clear to everyone without getting into the Latin terms and formal logic arguments. (I do apologize if my limited ability to come up with examples confused the underlying logic of my point.)

 

[Bugman]

Bugman:
Well if you think that basically anything that isn't ok in real life, people are not free to express in fantasy then that is a completely different question (I can not imagine the incredibly numerous things you would censor on the basis, video games, movies, music ect that depict admittedly abhorrent acts) ... as for my examples I only meant to show that "we have a gut feeling" or "we know it's wrong" has less than no logical bases whatsoever and has little validity in argument but since you want to take exception to specific examples let me put it another way. Human beings are raised in societies, social groups, and they tend to adopt certain moral ideology from their social groups. As such they may be conditioned to believe different things in different places at different times, and since many people would have different "gut feelings' that is not a logical valid argument, I will readily agree that my examples are somewhat lacking, but it really doesn't change the nature of the argument, I hope you see my point there... the gut feeling, or an "everyone knows" or "its always been that way" argument always lacks logical validity. Always has, it is covered in first semester philosophy at every college in the country as a formal fallacy, I was merely pointing that out and tried to use some (perhaps bad) examples to make it clear to everyone without getting into the Latin terms and formal logic arguments. (I do apologize if my limited ability to come up with examples confused the underlying logic of my point.)

Perhaps i was not clear in my response.I am not in favor of censorship for the most part,except when it comes to minors.Adults are free to view what they wish to,read or write what they wish as long as no one is harmed.I was only pointing out some things that i find disturbing.

We could debate the issue of *gut feelings* i suppose,but i have found for the most part that it has served we pretty well.Again,i speak only for myself.

 

[GodlessTickler]

Now see here is the point that I was making, I agree... No minors, but I am asking if anyone can logically support this statement

I am not in favor of censorship for the most part,except when it comes to minors.

Again, as a matter of course for the forum, as a matter of personal preference I AGREE 100% but none the less I am asking for a logical rather than emotional defense of making a difference between the minors issue IN FANTASY/FICTION.

I know some people will think I am arguing this because I am in favor of minor content or some such, I am not I am PERSONALLY opposed to it, but most who have ever spoken with me know exactly why I am taking this opinion, because I like logic, and I like to debate.

Now as I have said, the practical reasons (the only ones that should really matter to the moderators) are clear. But many, if not most of the members of this forum find minor content on an adult from morally reprehensible... I am just asking why the double standard, I again must point out I am not talking about things that involve actual children, I am talking about completely fictitious stories or pictures.

 

[Bugman]

If someone gets their jollies from fictitous pictures/stories involving children,it seems logical to me that they will,at some point try to act on their fantasies.

Perhaps i am way off base here,but in cases like that i would rather be safe then sorry.It is,to the best of my knowledge pretty much acknowledged that pedophiles cannot be *cured* or *reformed*,and any thing that feeds their desires needs to be denied to them.

Absolute free speach in any form is not guarnteed or protected,nor can it be in the real world.Am i addressing your points here?If i am still off track i do apologize.

 

[GodlessTickler]

I expected this reply, and again, good point, but replace the word children with the words rape, murder, sadism, kidnapping and reread it if the logic applies to one it applies to most if not all. So by this reasoning not only should we censor rape fantasy materials, because rapists are similar to the ones you speak of, but also... for example great film fantasy like Scarface because it could be argued it feeds sociopath behavior and as we know a true sociopath is difficult to impossible to cure as well. (and if the movie analogy doesn't work for you... notice that at least the rape fantasy analogy should apply in almost all aspects)

 

[ViperGTS]

I expected this reply, and again, good point, but replace the word children with the words rape, murder, sadism, kidnapping and reread it if the logic applies to one it applies to most if not all. So by this reasoning not only should we censor rape fantasy materials, because rapists are similar to the ones you speak of, but also... for example great film fantasy like Scarface because it could be argued it feeds sociopath behavior and as we know a true sociopath is difficult to impossible to cure as well. (and if the movie analogy doesn't work for you... notice that at least the rape fantasy analogy should apply in almost all aspects)

Alright, I'll play your game. Check this out.

"The TMF is a place for grown men and women to safely fantasize about tickle torture."

That's fine, right?

Well, according to the content on the site, let's try this one.

"The TMF is a place for grown men and women to fantasize about non-consentual kidnapping and rape."

Pushing the line, isn't it? How about this one:

"The TickleTheater is a place for grown men and women to safely fantasize about young children tickling, fondling and having sex with each other."

Suddenly the TMF is a much more appealing place.

 

[asutickler]

I expected this reply, and again, good point, but replace the word children with the words rape, murder, sadism, kidnapping and reread it if the logic applies to one it applies to most if not all. So by this reasoning not only should we censor rape fantasy materials, because rapists are similar to the ones you speak of, but also... for example great film fantasy like Scarface because it could be argued it feeds sociopath behavior and as we know a true sociopath is difficult to impossible to cure as well. (and if the movie analogy doesn't work for you... notice that at least the rape fantasy analogy should apply in almost all aspects)

Here's one thing to consider: People with fetishes for rape, sadism, kidnapping, and even necrophelia have at least a chance to fulfill their fantasies by playing them out with another willing adult. They also have all manner of their "flavor" of pornography available to them.

Pedophiles do not have the option of working out their fantasies in a non-harmful manner, because their fantasies involve children. Many of them will claim that, they use "fantasy" (ie drawn or animated) material to sate themselves, and would never harm a child. In fact, a couple of the respondents to the TT thread said almost this exact same thing. Personally, I don't believe it. It's like hearing a wolf say that, although he loves the smell of lamb chops, he would never harm an innocent little sheep. Eventually, the lack of their desired activity is likely to push them over the edge... And when that happens, some poor kid is going to pay the price.

Pedophiles need professional help. They do NOT need images and videos that are going to inflame their desires, even if that material doesn't involve any "real" kids.

 

[Tissueboy]

Well...

I have a few different thoughts on this...

Firstly, why do we have people admitting they signed up when underage, then saying under 18 is too young to be involved in the website? In a way, this is legitimate enough. HOWEVER, I have a problem with this because I feel that they would do the same if they had their time again.

Secondly, let's face it. Maturity does not depend on age. You don't suddenly become more mature the day you turn 18. In fact, many 17 year olds are more mature than people in their 40s. And as someone else pointed out, a 16 year old is an adult in many ways in some cultures.

However, I still think simply for the survival of the site, and for the good of all members, we should stick to having no underage content here. Imagine if a media outlet found even innocent underage content here...

 

[cloudgazer2k]

Secondly, let's face it. Maturity does not depend on age. You don't suddenly become more mature the day you turn 18. In fact, many 17 year olds are more mature than people in their 40s. And as someone else pointed out, a 16 year old is an adult in many ways in some cultures.

However, I still think simply for the survival of the site, and for the good of all members, we should stick to having no underage content here. Imagine if a media outlet found even innocent underage content here...

you are so right, on both accounts. since this site is hosted in the U.S., people with the right pull could really make life difficult for us should underage material find it's way here.

 

[Pat1982]

You know, if they raised the ages of most things, I wouldn't be against it.

If they raised the driving age, the drinking age, the smoking age, the buying porn age, I wouldn't have a problem.

Most KIDS my age can't handle any of that stuff anyway.

At any rate, what's your point?

It's a no-brainer. People, fictional or real, under 18 should not be included on this web site. That said, I think you're going too far in the other direction. The 18-year-old MEN and WOMEN in Iraq should be able to do everything that a 21-year-old can do. People over 18 are ADULTS, not children.

 

[GodlessTickler]

asutickler

You are mostly right I think. This is similar to a line of thinking I had (I often have my debates inside my own head before posting anything so I don't look too foolish) But I must as always play devils advocate... I mean if I was arguing along side the majority opinion what fun would that be?

My line of counter reasoning goes as follows -

People with fetishes for rape, sadism, kidnapping, and even necrophilia have at least a chance to fulfill their fantasies by playing them out with another willing adult.

Well ok, yes and no. I mean they of course really can't, they can pretend with a willing adult. Most of these fantasies exclude the word willing... so a "willing" adult can pretend she is being raped, she can act as if she is being raped, but as they say... "you can't rape the willing" In the case of necrophilia it is even more pronounced... she can play dead, but she is alive if she's a willing adult. So the argument could go something like this... the pedophile can find someone young LOOKING 18 year old girl, dress her up in pigtails and a schoolgirl outfit and pretend she's 12. (and I am not talking about bdsm style age play here, I know they claim other reasons for that other than pedophilia, but its not my kink so I don't claim any knowledge) So I wouldn't see exactly how the argument for roleplay would truly exclude the pedophile from conversation.

It's like hearing a wolf say that, although he loves the smell of lamb chops, he would never harm an innocent little sheep. Eventually, the lack of their desired activity is likely to push them over the edge... And when that happens, some poor kid is going to pay the price.

Ok, this I feel may very well be true... but don't you think there are MANY people on the board who really deeply desire true tickle torture. Are you accusing every one of them of being unable to resist that desire.... they all commit or will soon commit assault and the fictitious story's that are here fueling there appetite are to blame for some poor woman paying the price?
See what I mean about a double standard. If you wrote the same post word for word as someone condemning people with a tickling fetish we would have an army on this board saying it wasn't so, fantasy is fantasy we know the difference and we know the line of what is ok in real life and what is wrong.

Now I hope this doesn't make me sound like a complete arrogant jerk trying to argue with himself, but as I mentioned I am with the majority here, I think its wrong, but I dislike the logical hypocrisy so one thing I have thought of is that perhaps (and this would take a bit more neurological and psychological understanding than I have at the moment) pedophiles are in fact damaged in some way that the average sadist is not. Then of course circumstances would be different for the two groups and therefore it wouldn't be a double standard. Just trying to not leave any stones unturned... not trying to sound like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth... but I guess I am and do in a sense, because I don't care if I believe something I tend to argue the points logically anyway.

 

[wendynpeter]

Because I'm in the process of deleting my account there, and those aren't the only two pictures. I'm not going to go through all the Anime and other drawings on TT. Those are just a few I found within 10 minutes of looking.

The fact that they are there, and that there were more, and worse pictures, that I didn't want to post here and ruin the image of the TMF, is sad, and it's not my job to remove them, it's the job of mods at TT, and unfortunately, some of them have picked to argue for that side of this debate anyway.

Not to mention, that those pics had been posted a long time ago and were on the first page of a very, very, very long thread.

I had very long, drawn-out debates both in the forum at TT and with the mods about underage content. The thing about TT is that a lot of the questionable drawings, etc., are by TT members and they are TT members in order to publish their stuff and get attention. Some of those artists are the mods themselves. The truth is that the mods defend highly questionable underage content. Do they allow explicit photos of obviously underage kids? No. But, as TG is saying, they allow everything that isn't clearly illegal, and defend the rest by arguing that most of the members are kids themselves and don't see what the big deal is.

Of course, they have no idea what age their members REALLY are, and pedophiles always say they are 18, even when they're 58. I have no doubt that there are a lot of 20 year olds on TT, and even more who act like 12 year olds. The mods defend them to the hilt.

If it sounds like I was totally disgusted by TT, then I'm getting my point across.

 

[wendynpeter]

Pedophiles need professional help. They do NOT need images and videos that are going to inflame their desires, even if that material doesn't involve any "real" kids.

Pedophiles need professional supervision. In professional facilities designed to keep them away from other people.

 

[Excess]

Of course, they have no idea what age their members REALLY are, and pedophiles always say they are 18, even when they're 58. I have no doubt that there are a lot of 20 year olds on TT, and even more who act like 12 year olds. The mods defend them to the hilt.

If it sounds like I was totally disgusted by TT, then I'm getting my point across.

Riiiiiight, and the TMF TOTALLY knows what age it's members REALLY are as well, and NONE of it's members ever act like 12 year olds. <_< Yeah, attacks like that aren't cool...Plus, this is about the TMF and it's member's thoughts on the subject, not on how much you hate TT, so yeah.

That being said, I agree with what you said before. Thing is that atleast 2 of the mods are actually on the fence about it, for reasons that can be seen quite commonly. This is part of why there's more a debate about it there than here, well that and that TT seems to have attracted a younger crowd in comparison to here.

 

[wendynpeter]

In certain anime grown men and women are transformed by spells into chibi(kids), does that mean despite being "old" they are not considered that cuz of their apperance?

Ah, the "Chibi" thing. The pedophile's "loophole." Whatever it means, it's absolutely inappropriate to have underage images on an adult sexual fetish website, no matter what the backstory is. Pedophiles don't care what the backstory is, they only want to see images of kids in a sexual context. Put underage images on an adult sexual fetish website, and you have kids in a sexual context.

 

[Iggy pop]

Let me just say I think the owners should make decisions that they feel will most likely keep them out of legal trouble. As for my personal opinions, if it is bluntly obvious that the person is a child, then I agree it should be removed. I also see grey areas. What about cartoon adult animals? Would this be considered beastality? Which I do believe(and hope) is still illegal. And how about all those stories about cousins and aunts? Are these stories incestual? Now I think this may be legal, but in my opinion is still "icky." What about stories about when I was under age 18. My sexual history did not begin when I turned 18, and those experiences do play an intergal part in who I am today. I have reminised with others about sexual encounters that happened in high school with others, and I do not think anybody thought we were pedophiles.

 

[chicago]

It's a no-brainer. People, fictional or real, under 18 should not be included on this web site. That said, I think you're going too far in the other direction. The 18-year-old MEN and WOMEN in Iraq should be able to do everything that a 21-year-old can do. People over 18 are ADULTS, not children.

18 year olds are hardly adults.